الدعاوى القانونية التي تناولها المسؤولون السياسيون في الخليج الفارسي [و‎‎٦‎٥‎٥] (٢٢/١٥)

Cases in Persian Gulf disposed of by Major Smith.
MEMORANDUM.
A case which was before Government in 1856-59 would seem to explain in
a measure the interference exercised by the British Resident in the Persian Gulf
m cases occurring within his political charge in which British subjects are
concerned.
2. In 1856 Pacliablioy Tejsee, a Merchant of Bombay, solicited the aid of
(government to enable him to recover a sum of money alleged to be due to him
Voi. 162,18-57, page 315 . ^ tlie Pmgah, and the matter having been
referred to the Political Besident, that Officer
despatched an Indian Navy vessel to Lingahwith the object of procuring pay
ment of the claim (Krans 1,500), the “object of the Clive’s visit (instruc
tions foi Commander) is to impress upon the Sheik of Bingah the necessity of
complying with demands which have been long evaded under some pretext or
other. Por this purpose a firm tone should he adopted by her Commander
without committing us to any direct course of action, dependent, as that is,
on the policy which Her Majesty’s Minister in Persia may deem fit to adopt for
the recovery of claims upon parties now living under Persian protection on the
shores of this Gulf. But you may authorize him to decline receiving either
letter or excuse in reply to my demand, hut that on expiration of the period
named, if the money is not received, he may quit the port on his return here,
intimating to the Sheik that he may now expect to he dealt with in another
form.”
Vol. 163, 18-58, page 170.
Vol. 163, 18-58, page 193.
3. This proceeding was approved by Government, with the exception of
the threat held out at the close of the instructions. The Ilon’ble the late
Court of Directors, however, in their despatch with
reference to this matter (dated 7th July, No. 19
of 1858) stated—“We wish it to be explained on what ground it is considered
* rr , . . , „ ,, part of the duty of the British representative to
loan are not stated in the peti- recover sums lent by Natives ot India to Aral) Chiefs,
tion of Tejsee. such a proceeding being totally opposed to the gene
ral principles which regulate our relations with Native States.”
4. In reply to these remarks Captain Jones stated:—“ The recovery of
sums lent by our subjects to Arab Chiefs does, in
reality, form no part of the duty of the British
Representative in these parts, though in his intercourse with the Chiefs and
people he has always endeavoured by friendly remonstrances to advance their
claims by recommending them to the Chiefs, so that they may receive attention
in regions where, without the occasional countenance of protecting authority,
their mercantile transactions and British Indian trade in general would be pre
carious if not altogether stagnant.
“With respect to the case cited in the paragraph in question, it was a
gross one, partaking of the nature of a fraud in which the British Agent at
Dingah was in some way involved and through him likely to prove detri
mental to the appellant, Pachabhoy Tejsee. It seemed to me one, therefore,
requiring more than ordinary interference, and while condemning the
conduct of the Agent, I deemed it also incumbent on me to exert
myself in the recovery of the sum, which was at last effected, in the manner
reported.
“At the same time I am fully impressed with the conviction that the
adjustment of ordinary transactions between British Native traders and the
Chiefs and people of these regions should not come under the consideration of
the British Besident, conducted as such transactions are, in a complicated and
usurious manner, peculiar to a needy population on the one hand, and a highly
speculative and exacting class like the Banians on the other. Indeed,
were interference the rule instead of the exception, it would necessitate
Courts of Appeal and British Consular authorities in every petty locality
of the Gulf. Moreover, owing to the insecurity attending trade in all Arab
localities, I have more than once promulgated to those engaged the warning
13
d